What's more believable; Aliens or God?

[outhouse]

Why? In essence, this is a probability issue. We are limited in our predictive power by a number of factors (such what other fundamentally different types of life are possible and how). However, the universe isn't infinite. If the conditions necessary for life (let alone life which evolves into intellegent life) are as improbable as many believe, then the vastness of the universe is nothing compared to the massive improbability of life.

why? common sense

and mostly false


the ones that find it improbably are generally closed minded theist

 

[outhouse]

With all these galaxies in a tiny portion of the sky, and many many more beyond them that we can't see, I think I can believe that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe

to me it would be idiotic to think differently. One must have a very nieve view of our galaxy let alone the whole universe. or a poor understanding of science or math.

 

[Sgloom]

We see life one earth, so we know that life is possible. But we don't know how probable it is. There are many, many, many reasons for thinking that life, particularly intelligent life, is virtually impossible. The odds against life on earth, in other words, were astronomical. Yet here we are. That's no reason to suppose that life exists elsewhere.

it doesnt matter how propable or improbable life happened on earth, it happened and thats reason enough for me to suppose it couldve happened elsewhere.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think Aliens and Gods could exist, but I'm not sure about either one.
However I do think that Aliens have the higher mathmatical possibility of
existence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ah my mistake

Okay, but imagine a photo that included all galaxies, including our own, we wouldn't see Earth, obviously, so my argument still stands, although I was looking at the wrong picture, again my mistake.

Just the wrong end. LOL

I think its just a matter of time before we see something out there. Not sure if it will be in our time or even the next generation(s) either. Considering the insane distances between systems. Eventually I suppose. Our closest goldilocks planet is what? Gliese 581 at 20.3 lightyears away?

 

[outhouse]

. In 2007 the National Research Council published the results of a committee titled Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems which could only conclude that life elsewhere is possible, but acknowledged that some members (and specialists elsewhere) believe the probability that the necessary conditions for life combined with life arising out of these conditions are "infinitesimal."

Spoken like a true creationist

Not really.

yes really.

That perspective is less a matter of science and more a matter of anthropocentrism.

Wrong againg.

while it can be a part of it, science builds the parameters for which the knowledge encompasses anthropocentrism.

As Cohen and Stewart put it in their book on the science of extraterrestrial life: "We are inferring that evolution must have been easy, because it didn't take very long. An alternative is that it was very hard for life to evolve on its own accord, if not impossible, so life could only occur because someblyd or something (God, the Solid State Entity, the Galactic Mind, the Cosmic Computer) created it." The authors do not adhere to this view, but it is found across scientific disciplines elsewhere.

I would argue this all day long. CREATION is not found across scientific disiplines

what year does this information come from??

The edited book Fitness of the Cosmos for Life: Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning (Cambridge University Press, 2007) is filled with papers written by scientists from different backgrounds on how unlikely and improbable life is at any level.

then they are not that smart and or theist.

because we are here, is all the proof one needs that life does not just barely find a way!, but in the right enviroment, life explodes!!!

One thing is certain, you cannot keep life down. It finds a way even in the most harsh enviroments.

Intelligent life (not just human intelligence or greater, but something a good deal more complex than single-celled organisms), as far as we know, requires unbelievably improbable sequences of events

False again

we dont know enough about abiogenesis to state that with any certainty.


I would suggest you quit looking at all these biased unscientific sources





for every biased article you posted I can find a thousand that say the opposite from people with valid credentials, but I only need one.

Neil Degrasse Tyson

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

why? common sense

There's been a fair amount of research within philosophy and psychology (in recent years, evolutionary psychology has contributed a great deal) on the fallacies of "common sense." Particularly when it comes to logical deduction and inference, probability, and related areas of reasoning, there are common flaws in common sense.

the ones that find it improbably are generally closed minded theist

A rather sweeping statement. Unless you believe that a number of journals which focus on (or relate to) theoretical physics, cosmology, astrophysics, etc., as well as academic publishers like Cambridge University Press (which all, journals and book publishers, also publish papers and books espousing contrary views) are run by "close minded theists" then your statement seems rather hard to defend. Fitness of the Cosmos for Life, for example, was published by Cambridge University Press and the papers it contains were written by about two dozen specialists in a variety of fields. There are quite a few scientists who subscribe to the view that life elsewhere is only possible (not probable) and quite a few who find it very unlikely. When it comes to complex life, there number of skeptics becomes much larger.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

it doesnt matter how propable or improbable life happened on earth, it happened and thats reason enough for me to suppose it couldve happened elsewhere.

Could have, yes. The more important question (I think) is how likely it is that life may be found elsewhere (or could have at some point in the past or could at some point in the future), and in particular does this life amount to anything more than extremely simple organisms?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Spoken like a true creationist

Citing the national research council is speaking "like a true creationist?" And how on earth do you jump from any statement I've made to the conclusion that I believe the universe was created?

while it can be a part of it, science builds the parameters for which the knowledge encompasses anthropocentrism.

I don't understand what you mean by the above.

I would argue this all day long. CREATION is not found across scientific disiplines

In order to understand how life emerges or could emerge on earth or elsewhere, fields like biology, chemistry, physics (including astrophysics), genetics, mathematics, and
so on are extremely relevant.

what year does this information come from??

Ward and Brownee published Rare Earth in 2000. Ward is a professor of biology and Brownee is a professor of astrology. Fitness of the Cosmos for Life was published in 2007. The contributers (it is an edited book, composed of individual papers) include professors and/or doctorates in a number of fields, including astrophysics, chemistry, biomedical engineering, mathematics, philosophy, zoology, etc. Privileged Planet was published in 2004. One author is an astronomer, the other a philosopher and theologian.

I think those were the only works I mentioned, although many more exist.

then they are not that smart and or theist.

Many are not theists, and the fact that you disagree with them doesn't appear to be a good argument for their stupidity, unless you happen to be an expert in their fields (which would mean you have numerous doctorates).

because we are here, is all the proof one needs that life does not just barely find a way!, but in the right enviroment, life explodes!!!

That merely proves that life is possible. Not probable. But the key phrase you used, "right environment," is exactly the point. The argument against any life or any complex life elsewhere rests in part on the evidence that the "right environment" is so improbable that if it were possible for a being to predict the likelihood of life (or, for some, complex life) if earth didn't exist, they would conclude that the possibility was so small it might as well be impossible. Yet here we are. So (barring design, which is a related but separate issue) either something astronomically improbable occured, and therefore it is almost certain that life hasn't, doesn't, and won't appear elsewhere, or it is improbable but less so (and there the opinions range from "it's almost certain life exists elsewhere" to "it may, but it is unlikely).

One thing is certain, you cannot keep life down. It finds a way even in the most harsh enviroments.

Actually it doesn't, despite what the actor from Jurassic Park asserted. The earth is far, far, older than life. And there is no reason to suppose that once self-replicating organisms appeared, it was inevitable at all that they would evolve rather than simply die.



False again

we dont know enough about abiogenesis to state that with any certainty.


I would suggest you quit looking at all these biased unscientific sources

for every biased article you posted I can find a thousand that say the opposite from people with valid credentials, but I only need one.

Neil Degrasse Tyson

1) You can't find anywhere near that number of opposing experts
2) Everyone is biased, including non-theists and atheists
3) A lot of proponents for the view I described are not theists.

 

[outhouse]

There's been a fair amount of research within philosophy and psychology (in recent years, evolutionary psychology has contributed a great deal) on the fallacies of "common sense." Particularly when it comes to logical deduction and inference, probability, and related areas of reasoning, there are common flaws in common sense.

Maybe if you followed a science that is applicable

You would have less trouble understanding the ramifications of your unfounded statements

A rather sweeping statement.

yes it is, but it is accurate.

Unless you believe that a number of journals which focus on (or relate to) theoretical physics, cosmology, astrophysics, etc., as well as academic publishers like Cambridge University Press (which all, journals and book publishers, also publish papers and books espousing contrary views) are run by "close minded theists" then your statement seems rather hard to defend. Fitness of the Cosmos for Life, for example, was published by Cambridge University Press and the papers it contains were written by about two dozen specialists in a variety of fields. There are quite a few scientists who subscribe to the view that life elsewhere is only possible (not probable) and quite a few who find it very unlikely. When it comes to complex life, there number of skeptics becomes much larger.

I told you it is wise to stop using biased sources, that are not only unfounded and not peer reviewed. But goes against teh grain of all real science.

john barrow is not a biologist and not qualified to make such statements. I know more about biology then he does.

You have provided unworthy biased matarial, epic fail on your part. [facepalm]

 

[Trimijopulos]

The answer to OP is: definitely the Aliens.
The reason being that Drake’s equation is a theory devised by a someone and based on some data.
On the other hand, the idea of the existence of a God is nobody’s theory and the study of religion almost asserts that the idea is based on an archaic joke.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The reason being that Drake’s equation is a theory devised by a someone and based on some data.

His equation is simply a model which assumes a great deal we don't know. Here's an equation that states the opposite: Rare Earth Equation

 

[outhouse]

Citing the national research council is speaking "like a true creationist?" And how on earth do you jump from any statement I've made to the conclusion that I believe the universe was created?

because you post a quote mined statement that claims life elsewhere is possible, then state the rest of your poste going against it.

Ward and Brownee published Rare Earth in 2000.

the rare earth hypothesis is just that and not a mainstream view.

Many are not theists, and the fact that you disagree with them doesn't appear to be a good argument for their stupidity, unless you happen to be an expert in their fields (which would mean you have numerous doctorates).

My statement stands. many creationist not only have phoney degrees, but many post outside their field of expertise.

So far you have not posted mainstream scientific knowledge, but rather a biased minoroty position

That merely proves that life is possible. Not probable.

sorry the variety of life proves probability in the fact that life finds away despite enviromental conditions.

But the key phrase you used, "right environment," is exactly the point.

that is where the drake equation comes in and is accurate. That fact that recently we have descovered more stars then previously thought only add's positive numbers to it.


the fact we have our enviroment here, would be idiotic to think it a fluke. it is basically mathmatically impossible for us to be alone.

 

[outhouse]

His equation is simply a model which assumes a great deal we don't know. Here's an equation that states the opposite: Rare Earth Equation

and what a joke that is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

because you post a quote mined statement that claims life elsewhere is possible, then state the rest of your poste going against it.

First, I didn't "quote mine" anything. Second, the finding "possible" is quite different from "probable" which was a central point I was making by using that source. Third, part of their conclusion concerned the members who believed that the chances of life starting like they did here are "infinitesimal."

the rare earth hypothesis is just that and not a mainstream view

The "rare earth hypothesis" received its name from the book I mentioned published in 2000. There are earlier works which reach the same conclusions. More importantly, the hypothesis doesn't cover all the scientists who argue that life (or complex life) is either fantastically unlikely to exist elsewhere or who believe that it is very unlikely. It's just a termed coined from a fairly recent work.

My statement stands. many creationist not only have phoney degrees, but many post outside their field of expertise.

So far you have not posted mainstream scientific knowledge, but rather a biased minoroty position

And on how exactly are you determining that it is a "minority position?"

The people I referred to were almost all specialists in sciences directly related to this issue. When NASA and other government funded academic programs address this issue, they use specialists with the same backgrounds. In fact, were involved in such committees.

You claim the view is "biased." On what basis? Have you read any scientific literature on the topic? Have you read the works I referred to? Are you familiar with the science involved, which would enable you to judge the merit of the arguments presented?

sorry the variety of life proves probability in the fact that life finds away despite enviromental conditions.

You have one instance of life "finding away" and that's Earth. And it took a couple billion years just to get to complex cells, let alone multi-cellular organisms. And life doesn't find a way under lots of environmental conditions here. You say "life finds a way" because in this one case after several billion years, multicellular life began to adapt and evolve well-enough so that increasingly complex organisms could survive under earth's environmental conditions. All that means is that in one instance we know of life emerged and evolved under specific circumstances.

that is where the drake equation comes in and is accurate.

It can't be said to be "accurate" because it depends on unknowns. Here's a modified equation (again) which uses the same approach and shows the exact opposite: Rare Earth Equation.

the fact we have our enviroment here, would be idiotic to think it a fluke. it is basically mathmatically impossible for us to be alone.

Mathematically impossible? Are you referring to probability? How are you defining your probability space?

That assertion rests on a logical fallacy. The fact that it occured here says nothing about how likely it is that life exists elsewhere except that it is possible. In order to get beyond that, you would have to understand what conditions are necessary for life, and we don't know. There are many scientists who think that the necessary conditions are so rare that life is unlikely to exist elsewhere, especially complex life.

 

[Daviso452]

I just don't trust books anymore. Too much room for bias on either side. I prefer textbooks, magazine journals, or websites. They usually have a plethora of people filtering out garbage.

 

[tytlyf]

It's rather simple to have life flourish on a planet, regardless of the size. I would say you only need 2 things.

1. A planet at the correct distance from a star to have liquid water. (too hot = evaporation, too cold = frozen)

2. No extinction event for life to flourish.


On earth, we're overdue for another extinction event. We've been lucky. And when that meteor hits, no more humans. Life will continue though. And evolution reboots. I'd be willing to bet that humans wouldn't show up the next time around.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I told you it is wise to stop using biased sources, that are not only unfounded and not peer reviewed. But goes against teh grain of all real science.

All books published by academic publishers (such as university presses) are peer-reviewed.

john barrow is not a biologist and not qualified to make such statements. I know more about biology then he does.

You don't even know enough of the field to realize which specialties are relevant!!? Are you aware that when the National Research Council reviewed work done in this area, not only did they rely on astrophysicists lke Barrow, the programs they reviewed did as well. How can you say that experts in astrophysics and cosmology are not qualified to make statements about the conditions for life and the likelihood of it existing elsewhere? A biologist is much more qualified to answer questions relating to life, even life emerging here, but what do they know about the conditions outside of earth? Astrobiology uses specialists in many fields, biology included (and the works I referred to were written at least in part by biologists), but the majority of specialists are physicists.

 

[outhouse]

All books published by academic publishers (such as university presses) are peer-reviewed.

false

nothing ID or creation is peer reviewed [facepalm] you also posted a person who doesnt know squat about biology dealing with biology.

Bad information is just that

 

[outhouse]

A biologist is much more qualified to answer questions relating to life, even life emerging here, but what do they know about the conditions outside of earth?

Biologist answer questions about life, all life as we know it. why ask someone clueless to life to make a valid scientific statement .??? its not their field and idiotic to think they should be stepping over their expertise